|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is not science | |||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Look City on a a Hill, I was around 3 billion years ago, and I can tell you that evolution did indeed happen. I directly observed it first-hand for billions of years.
You probably just dismissed my argument that I was around in pre-biotic Earth, but for what reason? You don't know for a fact I wasn't around 3 billion years ago, because by your own admission that is an issue of faith, not fact. However, there is evidence that eon long life spans are not possible, so you probably drew the conclusion that there is no way I could have lived that long. So, you just made a factual conclusion about the past - that I wasn't there. So clearly, science isn't limited to facts about the present. Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Dr. A. writes: Evolutionist: This man has been shot. Creationist: How do you know? You weren't there. A bit of an aside, but it demonstrates this point well, is a skit of the same theme written by a fellow member of EvoWiki.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/a_parable.htm quote: Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
City on a Hill writes: Did you actually SEE the evolution of an unicellular cell to the modern man? Yes. See my post here. Edited by Doddy, : link Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
City on a hill writes: ...and many more who question evolution If the scientists are doing their job right, they should be questioning evolution every day. Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
City on a Hill writes: Because the genetic information needed for legs to exist in a legless creature are far far FAR too complicated to appear in a random mutation. That's true. But nobody says that legs appeared in a single random mutation. A mutation to the Homeobox (HOX) genes (spefically ones like Ubx) can cause legs to appear on a legged animal. These genes are like 'switches', and so can turn on the leg genes in the wrong spot if mutated. This is the sort of mutation that causes legs to appear instead of wings in chickens and extra toes to appear on humans). However, there is no fundamental reason why a mutation to such a gene couldn't cause a rib or an antenna to grow by accidentally turning on one copy of an antenna gene, and then that gene was mutated in further generations to form a rudimentary limb. Anyway, this is getting off-topic. If you want, you can start another thread on this issue. Edited by Doddy, : I digress Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: ...the "net information" of DNA in the most primitive in time earliest known form of life is still the same as it is in all of life as we know it. As Nuggin asked, what the heck is 'net information'? And I may ask, what reason or evidence do you have to think that the 3-5 billion base pair human genome has the same 'net information' as E. Coli's 4.6 million base pair genome? Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
City_on_a_Hill writes: When I'm talking about letters, I mean, ACTG, the letters that make up the human genome. Actually, there's five. 5-mC (5-methylcytosine). Well, that's for the epigenome anyway. Not all inheritance is via genes in humans. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics City_on_a_Hill writes: Genetic sequences have to be precise. Each of the three billion "letters" has to be right. You can't take one part of the genetic sequences and put it somewhere else. Actually, you pretty much always can. Not only are there such things as silent mutations (for example, changing a codon from CCT to CCA doesn't affect the protein encoded), but also conservative ones (CCA to CGT produces a similar protein). Plus, most of the genome doesn't actually code for proteins anyway. If an animal had such a fragile genetic code, it would die very soon. Thus, only the animals with resistant genetic codes survive today. To put this in your sort of argument, God made the genetic code very resistant to lethal mutations, so that his creation didn't die after one day in the sun. Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Ah, I see. So the reason it doesn't make any sense to me is because it is based upon a senseless premise. Garbage in, garbage out.
Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024